First of all, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) isn't running for president. She won't change her mind next month or later in the year. It's simply not going to happen. She said the other day, "I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?" If you see wiggle room in that statement, then I have some robot insurance to sell you. Nevertheless, here's The (Embattled) New Republictoday (via Charlie Pierce):
In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep that aired Monday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren repeatedly dodged whether she intends to run for president, saying that she “is not running for president.” That’s been her line for months, but it only makes clear that she's not running for president at this moment; it says nothing about her future plans. Inskeep pressed her on that point. “I am not running for president,” Warren said again. “You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?”
How the hell is that a dodge?
WARREN: I'm not running. Ever.
TNR: So you're telling me there's a chance? YES!
Among those whom you'd expect would support a run by Warren in lieu of ever supporting presumptive frontrunner Hillary Clinton, you'd think progressives who orbit around guys like The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald would be at the heart of a grassroots Warren effort. Think again. Greenwald made it perfectly clear that Warren is more or less just another political demon, all too willing to genuflect to Israel.
Greenwald started a Warren Is So Gross! thread the other day with this tweet:
The Intercept link points to a column posted by Greenwald with the headline: "ELIZABETH WARREN FINALLY SPEAKS ON ISRAEL/GAZA, SOUNDS LIKE NETANYAHU."
Sounds like Netanyahu, eh? Greenwald buttoned-up the column with a snarky, "That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party." At this point, is there any Democrat who Greenwald wouldn't relentlessly crap upon?
The thread continued with Greenwald and blogger Billmon taking turns sucker punching Warren's remarks on Gaza.
Billmon's link points to Warren's Israel policy, copied from her website. Greenwald replied:
No, I didn't make up the "so gross" remark earlier.
Is Greenwald suggesting that Israel not try to maintain a military advantage? If so, why? Anyway, the thread goes on and on -- a duo of petulant contrarians who simply don't understand that support for Israel is a political reality, if not an absolute mandate in national politics, irrespective of party affiliation. Then again, reality has never prevented Greenwald from shouting at the rain. And if Warren doesn't measure up to Greenwald's standards, who will? On second thought, this clearly is leading to a Greenwald endorsement of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) whose support for aid to Israel has been shaky. Oh, except for this Rand Paul quote:
“I've always said that my position is similar to (Benjamin) Netanyahu's position. It ultimately for Israel would be even better if they were completely independent. But I haven't proposed targeting, or eliminating any aid to Israel.”
Similar to Netanyahu? So gross.